Hi Jurij,
3 days, 15 hours, 21 minutes, 17 seconds ago,
Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
>
> >In fact, I was using 2.6.14 (with Bob Breuer's SMP patch) which does
> >_not_ have this lock sequence change.
> >
> >Now, I tried to apply this lock sequence change to my 2.6.14 tree to see
> >what happens and, well, the kernel does not hang as early as before but
> >I'm still getting "DMA error" messages and it panics soon enough as
> >well.
>
> Where does it panic? Where you able to get a backtrace?
No, sorry, I don't have a backtrace. I need to recompile it with the
doubtful locking change and we'll see (I'm compiling natively...).
> So far the reports on kernels with locking change reverted look like this:
>
> Me, HyperSPARC processors, UP kernel - DMA problems gone.
> Bertrand, HyperSPARC CPUs, SMP kernel - DMA problems still present.
> Bertrand, SuperSPARC CPUs, SMP kernel - DMA problems gone.
> You, HyperSparc CPUs, SMP kernel - DMA problems still present.
[With "You" == "Ludovic" and "Me" == "Jurij"]
I have SuperSPARCs (390Z50), not HyperSPARCs.
> From this data set it appears that DMA problems is some combination of the
> locking patch and SMP patch on HyperSPARCs only. It would be really useful
> if you could try running HyperSPARC with UP kernel and locking change
> reverted, that would at least make it clear that locking change is
> responsible for at least a part of the problem.
I tried running 2.6.16 UP (from the package currently in the archive)
but ran into various problems which I'll describe in another mail...
Sorry for not being more responsive and helpful. I'll need to go ahead
and cross-compile my sparc32 kernels from my U5 at some point. ;-)
Or, can you make 2.6.14 UP kernel packages available somewhere?
Thanks,
Ludovic.